Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade.
Gleason score
histopathology
prognosis
prognostic markers
prostate cancer
virtual microscopy
Journal
Clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1179-1349
Titre abrégé: Clin Epidemiol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101531700
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
26
09
2021
accepted:
14
12
2021
entrez:
27
1
2022
pubmed:
28
1
2022
medline:
28
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revised the Gleason system in 2005 and 2014. The impact of these changes on prostate cancer (PCa) prognostication remains unclear. To evaluate if the ISUP 2014 Gleason score (GS) predicts PCa death better than the pre-2005 GS, and if additional histopathological information can further improve PCa death prediction. We conducted a case-control study nested among men in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden diagnosed with non-metastatic PCa 1998-2015. We included 369 men who died from PCa (cases) and 369 men who did not (controls). Two uro-pathologists centrally re-reviewed biopsy ISUP 2014 Gleason grading, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern, comedonecrosis, perineural invasion, intraductal, ductal and mucinous carcinoma, percentage Gleason 4, inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and post-atrophic hyperplasia. Pre-2005 GS was back-transformed using i) information on cribriform pattern and/or poorly formed glands and ii) the diagnostic GS from the registry. Models were developed using Firth logistic regression and compared in terms of discrimination (AUC). The ISUP 2014 GS (AUC = 0.808) performed better than the pre-2005 GS when back-transformed using only cribriform pattern (AUC = 0.785) or both cribriform and poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.792), but not when back-transformed using only poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.800). Similarly, the ISUP 2014 GS performed better than the diagnostic GS (AUC = 0.808 vs 0.781). Comedonecrosis (AUC = 0.811), HGPIN (AUC = 0.810) and number of cores with ≥50% cancer (AUC = 0.810) predicted PCa death independently of the ISUP 2014 GS. The Gleason Grading revisions have improved PCa death prediction, likely due to classifying cribriform patterns, rather than poorly formed glands, as Gleason 4. Comedonecrosis, HGPIN and number of cores with ≥50% cancer further improve PCa death discrimination slightly.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revised the Gleason system in 2005 and 2014. The impact of these changes on prostate cancer (PCa) prognostication remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate if the ISUP 2014 Gleason score (GS) predicts PCa death better than the pre-2005 GS, and if additional histopathological information can further improve PCa death prediction.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a case-control study nested among men in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden diagnosed with non-metastatic PCa 1998-2015. We included 369 men who died from PCa (cases) and 369 men who did not (controls). Two uro-pathologists centrally re-reviewed biopsy ISUP 2014 Gleason grading, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern, comedonecrosis, perineural invasion, intraductal, ductal and mucinous carcinoma, percentage Gleason 4, inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and post-atrophic hyperplasia. Pre-2005 GS was back-transformed using i) information on cribriform pattern and/or poorly formed glands and ii) the diagnostic GS from the registry. Models were developed using Firth logistic regression and compared in terms of discrimination (AUC).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The ISUP 2014 GS (AUC = 0.808) performed better than the pre-2005 GS when back-transformed using only cribriform pattern (AUC = 0.785) or both cribriform and poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.792), but not when back-transformed using only poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.800). Similarly, the ISUP 2014 GS performed better than the diagnostic GS (AUC = 0.808 vs 0.781). Comedonecrosis (AUC = 0.811), HGPIN (AUC = 0.810) and number of cores with ≥50% cancer (AUC = 0.810) predicted PCa death independently of the ISUP 2014 GS.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The Gleason Grading revisions have improved PCa death prediction, likely due to classifying cribriform patterns, rather than poorly formed glands, as Gleason 4. Comedonecrosis, HGPIN and number of cores with ≥50% cancer further improve PCa death discrimination slightly.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35082531
doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S339140
pii: 339140
pmc: PMC8784949
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
59-70Informations de copyright
© 2022 Zelic et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Mr Luca Lianas reports grants from European Commission, grants from Sardinian Regional Authority, during the conduct of the study. Dr Cecilia Mascia reports grants from European Commission, grants from Sardinian Regional Authority, during the conduct of the study. The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Br J Cancer. 2006 Nov 6;95(9):1186-94
pubmed: 17077805
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):592-598
pubmed: 26542947
J Clin Pathol. 2020 Oct;73(10):630-635
pubmed: 32034057
Eur Urol. 2017 May;71(5):760-763
pubmed: 27939073
Front Med (Lausanne). 2017 Sep 29;4:157
pubmed: 29034236
Eur Urol. 2020 Feb;77(2):191-198
pubmed: 31439369
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):428-35
pubmed: 26166626
Mod Pathol. 2016 Jun;29(6):630-6
pubmed: 26939875
Br J Cancer. 2016 May 10;114(10):1078-83
pubmed: 27100731
Prostate. 2017 May;77(6):686-693
pubmed: 28156003
Eur Urol. 2007 Sep;52(3):733-43
pubmed: 17350750
Stat Med. 2015 Feb 10;34(3):396-405
pubmed: 25318454
Mod Pathol. 2017 Aug;30(8):1126-1132
pubmed: 28530220
J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):1938-42
pubmed: 15879786
Histopathology. 2019 Oct;75(4):589-597
pubmed: 31032963
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 Jun;20(2):197-202
pubmed: 28071673
Virchows Arch. 2010 Nov;457(5):547-53
pubmed: 20827488
Eur Urol. 2017 May;71(5):750-759
pubmed: 27940155
Pathology. 2015 Oct;47(6):520-5
pubmed: 26325671
Cancer. 2007 Jan 1;109(1):13-24
pubmed: 17123267
Pathology. 2010 Jun;42(4):339-43
pubmed: 20438406
Can Urol Assoc J. 2018 Jun 19;:
pubmed: 29940134
Eur Urol. 2016 Jun;69(6):1135-41
pubmed: 26707871
Virchows Arch. 2018 Feb;472(2):205-212
pubmed: 28975495
Prostate. 2017 Feb;77(3):263-273
pubmed: 27753114
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Oct;20(10):2280-7
pubmed: 21953116
Eur Urol. 2008 Oct;54(4):728-39
pubmed: 18603352
BJU Int. 2009 May;103(9):1190-4
pubmed: 19076142
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008;42(4):352-7
pubmed: 18609293
Acta Oncol. 2015 Feb;54(2):158-63
pubmed: 25034349
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Stat Med. 1997 Jul 15;16(13):1529-42
pubmed: 9249923
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 5;11(1):3257
pubmed: 33547336
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 May 1;17(5):479-505
pubmed: 31085757
Asian J Androl. 2018 Jul-Aug;20(4):366-371
pubmed: 29493549
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011 Sep;45(4):226-32
pubmed: 21463227
Am J Surg Pathol. 2017 Apr;41(4):e1-e7
pubmed: 28177964
Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42
pubmed: 16096414
J Urol. 2016 Aug;196(2):405-11
pubmed: 26920466
J Urol. 2008 Aug;180(2):548-52; discussion 552-3
pubmed: 18550106
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):106-119
pubmed: 26996659
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Sep;19(3):292-7
pubmed: 27215611
Int Urol Nephrol. 2011 Sep;43(3):697-705
pubmed: 21340462